I'm pretty sure he was anything but righteous BUT God moves the pieces on the chessboard of life to fulfill His will. He used the Assyrians to bring judgement on the nation of Israel. He used the Babylonians to bring judgement on Judah. He used the Romans to judge Judah again while at the same time dispersing the people through out the empire and spreading Christianity by doing so.
What I’ve read is that the pope didn’t like that King James made the Bible available to everyone. Prior to this Bible, only the church had direct access to it for a very long time. Even today, some portion of Catholics will say that this was a good thing because left to our own devices, we misunderstand a lot of scripture. I can agree with that, but also disagree that this means that ONLY a formal church should mediate scripture to us.
The notes on the CB and Jesuits are likely in play as well. There are these destroyed churches all over England supposedly from a period in time where Catholic monasteries and abbies were torn down.
As with all historical claims, your mileage may vary.
I would say he was, at least on the scale of Monarchs, a pretty good one that God certainly used well for his works.
1604 he ordered the translation of the Bible. 1605 they tried to blow him up. 1606 he signed the charters for Plymouth and London company that started the British colonisation of America. He presided over a period of relative peace calling himself "Rex Pacificus" King of Peace, keeping Britain out of Europe's problems and also a period of relative unity between England and Scotland.
I can't say if he was good or bad, I can say he's a nexus point in history that led to the point we're at now.
I'm having a hard time parsing this.
Was King James, the monarch, good or bad for this?
I'm pretty sure he was anything but righteous BUT God moves the pieces on the chessboard of life to fulfill His will. He used the Assyrians to bring judgement on the nation of Israel. He used the Babylonians to bring judgement on Judah. He used the Romans to judge Judah again while at the same time dispersing the people through out the empire and spreading Christianity by doing so.
Well said.
It’s a mix, with all of us.
What I’ve read is that the pope didn’t like that King James made the Bible available to everyone. Prior to this Bible, only the church had direct access to it for a very long time. Even today, some portion of Catholics will say that this was a good thing because left to our own devices, we misunderstand a lot of scripture. I can agree with that, but also disagree that this means that ONLY a formal church should mediate scripture to us.
The notes on the CB and Jesuits are likely in play as well. There are these destroyed churches all over England supposedly from a period in time where Catholic monasteries and abbies were torn down.
As with all historical claims, your mileage may vary.
I would say he was, at least on the scale of Monarchs, a pretty good one that God certainly used well for his works.
1604 he ordered the translation of the Bible. 1605 they tried to blow him up. 1606 he signed the charters for Plymouth and London company that started the British colonisation of America. He presided over a period of relative peace calling himself "Rex Pacificus" King of Peace, keeping Britain out of Europe's problems and also a period of relative unity between England and Scotland.
I can't say if he was good or bad, I can say he's a nexus point in history that led to the point we're at now.